Zeppelin Sessions Disc 2 sound question

firebird1999us · Post by **firebird1999us** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:27 am

Ok, for you Zeppelin officiandos -- I have had the sessions set since it came out in 1997 and have always loved Jimmy Pages guitar sound on the second disc...the one that begins with the Immagrant Song and ends with Thank You.

I know he used a Marshall 100 watter stack, an Echoplex, and a funny pedal for either dist or overdrive (tonebender?) plus a 1959 Les Paul.

My question is -- how did he get that amp to sound like that? And if you heard it you probably know what I mean... (and yes I know he's Jimmy Page!)

Was it just the Marshall waking up because of sheer volume? Or the type of pedal he used? It seems really thick and full, yet very midrange sounding. Was it a pedal overtop of the amps clean channel?

The reason I ask is because I've tried all types of Marshalls with my les paul to no avial (they all sound gearded to Whitesnake nowadays if that makes sense) -- the Rockerverbs are the only amps I've played that can approximate that sound to any degree.

Any suggestions?

Chris

Edbig · Post by **Edbig** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:53 am

I have thought the sounds on Zep I & II sounded suspiciously like an Orange Matamp head through 50 watt Fane speakers. I can nail those tones with one in any case.
Page was always very vague if not deceptive about how he got his sounds (understandibaly).
sorry bout my spellin

firebird1999us · Post by **firebird1999us** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:13 am

Well, I found this about Pages ongoing gear through the years

http://www.led-zeppelin.org/reference/gear.html

and another site said the same old "he used marshall 1959 slp hotrodded to 200 watts" thing -- which makes me kind of wonder, because I've never played a 1959 slp...I don't even know if they still sell reissues of them???

Also found a site that manufactures an updated version of the Sola Sound Tonebender (my guess was right) -- its an old 1960s British fuzz pedal that was apparently in pretty high demand back then.

http://www.proanalog.com/proanalogpedals.htm

spoonie g · Post by **spoonie g** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:32 am

I'd say it's a Marshall with power tube distortion. It does sound great. Plus, the recording could have a lot to do with it. Also, just now as I'm listening to it, it sounds like he is maybe using the middle pickup position for the rhythm part and going to the treble pickup after he goes to the lead.

firebird1999us · Post by **firebird1999us** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:08 am

First off, the reason I brought it up is because of everthing I've heard (including Peter Green, Alvin Lee, Hendrix, Clapton, et al...)it's the tone that I love the most! For me it is simply pure perfection, Page at his best...<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Now that said, I know they remixxed the bejesus out of it and added reverb to several songs which might have attributed to the overall warmth/smoothness. But I haven't had any luck with the Marshalls for that sound, especially since I require Reverb in an amp and as I've just found the 1959 slp doesn't have that...

So do you guys think it's possible to cop that sound with a Rockerverb? Would I use the clean or dirty channel as a baseline?

And a stupid question because I've never used a fuzz pedal -- is it like an overdrive in that it can be used overtop of an amps distortion channel?

Any opinions/suggestions on the topic?

Chris

JamesPatrickPageZoSo · Post by **JamesPatrickPageZoSo** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:55 am

Does it strike anybody else as being odd that Page reserved his matamp head strictly for the use of his theremin? I would have thought he'd put it through a really clean amp, like a fender, not an
amp known for its awesome overdriven tone. Wish he would have used the matamp for his LP. Oh well.

Eric

spoonie g · Post by **spoonie g** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 4:14 am

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
But I haven't had any luck with the Marshalls for that sound, especially since I require Reverb in an amp and as I've just found the 1959 slp doesn't have that...

So do you guys think it's possible to cop that sound with a Rockerverb? Would I use the clean or dirty channel as a baseline?

And a stupid question because I've never used a fuzz pedal -- is it like an overdrive in that it can be used overtop of an amps distortion channel?

Any opinions/suggestions on the topic?

Chris

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I don't think he used a fuzz on that recording. I think the fuzz was mainly used in the Zep I days when he was playing a Tele through a Supro.

I have no idea if you'd be able to cop that tone on a rockerverb, but I've heard from more than one source that it does old british (read: 60's Marshall) tones well.

firebird1999us · Post by **firebird1999us** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 4:43 am

I kind of figured the tonebender was reserved for the old Scandanavian tour stuff because you can really hear a over-the-top fuzz tone their and especially on disc one of the sessions...

I just figured ithad something to do with a fuzz though because of several pics I saw from the Sessions era that show Page with a tonebender between his guitar and amp...

JamesPatrickPageZoSo, I thought that too -- furthermore, why would you go out of your way to specify Orange amps just for a Therimin? I would tend to think a Fender Twin or something like that would work better -- but maybe it had something to do with the Orange adding more warmth???...of course I would tend to think a theramin sounds the same no matter what it's hooked up to.

Andy H. · Post by **Andy H.** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:43 am

Hot set live that eh? A bit rough, but the sheer energy of the band was mind blowing.

About the sounds he was getting, I can't comment on any fuzz etc pedals he was using, but if it was a 1959 (sure it would have been), then they do have a different sound from any more recent Marshalls. The emphasis of the sound is more on the low midrange then the more modern high midrange heavy Marshalls.

Chances are he also might have linked the two (non switchable) channels together with a patch lead. The normal channel is pretty full and bassy, the bright channel is a lot toppier. With them jumpered together you can just mix the sounds with the respective channel volumes. You can do this with pretty much any amp which has paralleled inputs for each channel, and I always do this for example with my vox amp.

Marshall did bring out reissues of the Super Lead 1959 a couple of years back. You need to wind these non master volume amps up to get the best out of them, though they also do very nice clean sounds - miles better then JCM800s etc. Although I'm not really big on Marshalls, in my book these are total monster amps. <img src=icon_smile_cool.gif border=0 align=middle>

Andy.

Edited by - Andy H. on 06 Dec 2004 07:44:47

Andy H. · Post by **Andy H.** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:28 am

By the way there is a 50 watt version of the 'plexi', the 1987X. Also available as a reissue, and probably a lot more practical for most live use...

Andy.

irish_admiral · Post by **irish_admiral** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:56 pm

Just a thought... any way of mixing the inputs on the ADs?

Don't tell me the best way, just tell me the cheapest way...

Andy H. · Post by **Andy H.** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:13 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Just a thought... any way of mixing the inputs on the ADs?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>Not along the same lines - only one input! It's easy when you have Hi / Lo inputs for each channel though.
My OR120 has two inputs - but only one channel. Close but no doggie chocs there either then... <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Andy.

irish_admiral · Post by **irish_admiral** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:02 pm

That's what I thought initially, althought I was thinking more along the lines of having a Y cord go to both at the same time.

Don't tell me the best way, just tell me the cheapest way...

Andy H. · Post by **Andy H.** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:56 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>That's what I thought initially, althought I was thinking more along the lines of having a Y cord go to both at the same time.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>If it's possible to have both channels switched in at the same time then it may well be alright. Don't know if that is though.
As splitting the signal would give each channel input a little less signal then it's used to, I wouldn't expect each of them to react exactly as before. Could be interesting. Shouldn't be too terminal... hopefully! <img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Andy.

LesPaulKing · Post by **LesPaulKing** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:53 pm

i know your talking about something different, but. On Zep I n II isnt that mostly tele-tonebender-supro? I remember jimmy said that solo in the middle of heartbreaker (Zep II) was the first time he used a marshall for recording. Ive never heard a LP-Marshall personally but on Zep two it sounds like a treble booster was used, or maybe that was just the tele-tonebender-supro combo??

I love my AD15

Zeppelin Sessions Disc 2 sound question

Who is online